Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 27:13:857280.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.857280. eCollection 2022.

Gamblers' use of measures to prevent gambling problems and reduce harm

Affiliations

Gamblers' use of measures to prevent gambling problems and reduce harm

Jonny Engebø et al. Front Psychiatry. .

Abstract

In this study, the use of measures to control gambling were investigated. Data from gamblers (N = 5,878) participating in a cross-sectional survey in 2019 based on random sampling from the Norwegian Population Registry, were analysed. The survey included questions about use of eight measures, which comprised the dependent variables. Questions about sociodemographics, gambling behaviour, gambling problems, self-reported impact from gambling advertisement and beliefs in measures to control gambling comprised the predictor variables. Logistic regression analyses were employed to identify significant predictors. Use of measures varied, ranging from 0.8% (contacting help services) to 23.2% (pre-commitment to affordable loss limits). All predictors had at least one significant association with the actual use of measures. Being a moderate risk or problem gambler was the most consistent predictor and was associated with the use of all eight measures. Being born outside Norway in a western or non-western country was associated with use of seven of the eight measures, whereas gambled online and participated in low-risk game only (inversely) were associated with use of six measures. Gender, age, game spending and beliefs in the usefulness of measures were associated with use of four measures. Participation in random games only was inversely associated with use of three measures. Self-reported impact from gambling advertisement was only (inversely) associated with self-testing for gambling problems. Several mechanisms responsible for the associations between predictors and the dependent variables are suggested, e.g., younger gamblers and moderate risk or problem gamblers may use these measures as they may acknowledge personal susceptibilities for developing gambling problems, such as impaired impulse control. Online gambling on the other hand was associated with use of various measures as the latter more often are integrated in online than offline gambling. Notably, the beliefs in measures as helpful was a significant predictor of use of four of the measures, which illustrates that positive views on the use of measures are not consistently associated with actual use of all the measures. Characteristics of the gamblers (e.g., place of birth, moderate risk or problem gambler), the game itself and the online distribution seem to be the most consistent predictors.

Keywords: gamblers' protection; gambling; gambling problems; harm reduction; pre-commitment; prevention; responsible gambling.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JE works as a senior adviser with The Norwegian Gambling Authority where one of his major tasks is related to regulation and responsible gambling. In addition, JE is a board member of GREF (Gaming Regulators European Forum) and he is also co-chair of a GREF working group in responsible gambling. Further he is a member of the executive committee of EASG (The European Association for the Study of Gambling). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Shaffer HJ. A science-based framework for responsible gambling: the Reno model. J Gambl Stud. (2004) 20:301–17. 10.1023/B:JOGS.0000040281.49444.e2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Auer M, Littler A, Griffiths MD. Legal aspects of responsible gaming pre-commitment and personal feedback initiatives. Gaming Law Rev Econ. (2015) 6:444–56. 10.1089/glre.2015.1966 - DOI
    1. Engebø J, Torsheim T, Mentzoni RA, Molde H, Pallesen S. Predictors of gamblers beliefs about responsible gambling measures. J Gambl Stud. (2019) 35:1375–96. 10.1007/s10899-019-09835-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haefeli J, Lischer S, Schwarz J. Early detection items and responsible gambling features for online gambling. Int Gambl Stud. (2011) 11:273–88. 10.1080/14459795.2011.604643 - DOI
    1. Gainsbury SM, Angus DJ, Procter L, Blaszczynski A. Use of consumer protection tools on internet gambling sites: customer perceptions, motivators, and barriers to use. J Gambl Stud. (2020) 36:259–76. 10.1007/s10899-019-09859-8 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources